By historical standards, the labor market is recovering nicely -- job growth has started earlier than in past recessions.

...

"Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute.

But today's economy is different. The problem is that the damage done during the Great Recession was so severe, it will take a lot more growth than normal to dig the job market out of its hole.

There were 8.4 million jobs lost in 2008 and 2009 -- roughly 7% of all jobs at the start of the recession. That compares to a loss of 3.1% of all jobs during the 2001 recession and the jobless recovery that followed, and only 1.9% of jobs lost during and after the 1990-91 recession.

By historical standards, the labor market is recovering nicely -- job growth has started earlier than in past recessions.

...

"Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute.

But today's economy is different. The problem is that the damage done during the Great Recession was so severe, it will take a lot more growth than normal to dig the job market out of its hole.

There were 8.4 million jobs lost in 2008 and 2009 -- roughly 7% of all jobs at the start of the recession. That compares to a loss of 3.1% of all jobs during the 2001 recession and the jobless recovery that followed, and only 1.9% of jobs lost during and after the 1990-91 recession.

Click to expand...

The graph is a joke, they even get the dates wrong for the 2000 recession (22months from 3-2001 & 11-2001???) , and then the editorial comment about jobless recovery, a lot of jobs were created between 2003 when the tax custs were enacted and 1/2007 when Pelosi and Redi took over congress.

However I am sure that the dems will be rewarded for the Summer of recovery and the great job growth by the voters in Nov. :singing:

The graph is a joke, they even get the dates wrong for the 2000 recession (22months from 3-2001 & 11-2001???) , and then the editorial comment about jobless recovery, a lot of jobs were created between 2003 when the tax cuts were enacted and 1/2007 when Pelosi and Redi took over congress.

Click to expand...

There was very little job growth. I think you'd have to cherry pick the years a little more carefully to try and make your point.

By historical standards, the labor market is recovering nicely -- job growth has started earlier than in past recessions.

...

"Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute.

But today's economy is different. The problem is that the damage done during the Great Recession was so severe, it will take a lot more growth than normal to dig the job market out of its hole.

There were 8.4 million jobs lost in 2008 and 2009 -- roughly 7% of all jobs at the start of the recession. That compares to a loss of 3.1% of all jobs during the 2001 recession and the jobless recovery that followed, and only 1.9% of jobs lost during and after the 1990-91 recession.

Click to expand...

Regardless of any "silver-lining" you're trying to find, this depression will linger for years to come.

There's no denying that, but a case can be made that Obama's approach is reasonably effective.

Click to expand...

And cases can be made that Roosevelt's programs either helped or prolonged the Great Depression.

Obama's policies may have helped ease suffering, but prolonged and further destabilized our economy. But one can never tell until years pass before a definitive assessment can be made.

Who knows what the long-term effect of putting America's deficit into the stratosphere will be. I'm more concerned with the long-term, not the short-term.

One thing is certain...programs like "Cash for Clunker" and the "First-time home-buyers incentive" are wrong and frankly, idiotic. If we want the economy to turn around, then we have to let home prices find their natural bottom so people will buy them and have confidence we have indeed bottomed out. Keeping the price of anything artificially high is just bad policy. If we don't keep home values artificially low, then there is no logic in keeping the artificially high. Besides, home values will ALWAYS find their natural bottom regardless of gov't policy.

And cases can be made that Roosevelt's programs either helped or prolonged the Great Depression.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that case is. When Roosevelt under pressure from Republicans decided to cut the federal deficit in 1937, we entered another recession that we did not come out of until we started gearing up for WWII and resumed deficit spending.

One thing is certain...programs like "Cash for Clunker" and the "First-time home-buyers incentive" are wrong and frankly, idiotic. If we want the economy to turn around, then we have to let home prices find their natural bottom so people will buy them and have confidence we have indeed bottomed out. Keeping the price of anything artificially high is just bad policy. If we don't keep home values artificially low, then there is no logic in keeping the artificially high. Besides, home values will ALWAYS find their natural bottom regardless of gov't policy.

Click to expand...

I think the idea of both programs was to help the economy come to a soft landing, which it did and the recovery started really quickly as the original article to this thread shows, but of course is not happening quickly enough.

I'm not sure what that case is. When Roosevelt under pressure from Republicans decided to cut the federal deficit in 1937, we entered another recession that we did not come out of until we started gearing up for WWII and resumed deficit spending.

What evidence do you have that deficit spending prolongs a recession and destabilizes the economy?

I agree with, Who knows? But our country has handled even greater deficits in the past (based on percent of GDP) and we always do have the capacity to tax if we must.

I think the idea of both programs was to help the economy come to a soft landing, which it did and the recovery started really quickly as the original article to this thread shows, but of course is not happening quickly enough.

Click to expand...

Patters, the FACT is, there hasn't been any recovery to date.

Here are some links supporting Roosevelt's policies prolonged the Great Depression;

For a start, New Deal intervention saved the banks. During Hoover's presidency, around 20 percent of American banks failed, and, without deposit insurance, one collapse prompted another as savers pulled their money out of the shaky system. When Roosevelt came into office, he ordered the banks closed and audited. A week later, authorities began reopening banks, and deposits returned to vaults. Congress also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which, as economists Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz wrote, was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." After the creation of the FDIC, bank failures almost entirely disappeared. New Dealers also recapitalized banks by buying about a billion dollars of preferred stock...
The most important thing to know about Roosevelt's economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938...
Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools -- as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.
This basic fact is clear -- unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed, which conservative commenters have taken to doing.

Of course, I don't expect you to put real thought into your absurd claims, and I don't expect that you'll have a reasonable response to these facts, and I expect if you try to respond, you'll change the subject or feint.

PR, that's a complete copout. Summarize what you feel are the strong points, or are you just demonstrating your ability to conduct an internet search? (And it looks like apple has even raised doubts about that ability!)

Of course, I don't expect you to put real thought into your absurd claims, and I don't expect that you'll have a reasonable response to these facts, and I expect if you try to respond, you'll change the subject or feint.

Click to expand...

The POINT I was making is that there are arguments supporting Roosevelt's policies as well as those NOT supporting them.

I was not referring to the minute details of each argument. Instead of looking for holes in poster's arguments (which you always do), look for where they may be correct.

PR, that's a complete copout. Summarize what you feel are the strong points, or are you just demonstrating your ability to conduct an internet search? (And it looks like apple has even raised doubts about that ability!)

Click to expand...

It's not a copout at all. The FACT is, there are PLENTY of arguments from people more educated in economic theory than you, me or Strudel that show why Roosevelt's policies prolonged the recession.

Not really since it pretty much eviscerated the counter-arguments. Plus, and we've had this conversation before but I expect that would would conveniently forget. Either it was the New Deal that brought the US out of recession or it was WWII. There is no third option. That being the case, in either case it would have to be MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND INTERVENTION that brought the US out of recession. :ugh:

Ah, this IS fun. And there's the old appeal to authority fallacy. You position's logic is in now demonstrated false. Wheee!

Not really since it pretty much eviscerated the counter-arguments. Plus, and we've had this conversation before but I expect that would would conveniently forget. Either it was the New Deal that brought the US out of recession or it was WWII. There is no third option. That being the case, in either case it would have to be MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND INTERVENTION that brought the US out of recession. :ugh:

Click to expand...

You're only purpose to is talk in circles Strudel.

FACT: There are popular arguments supported by advanced and recognized economists that both support and debunk Roosevelts policies. This is not debateable, yet you'll try keep this circular argument going by utilizing classroom debate techniques in a pompous attempt to win a debate. Good luck!

FACT: There are popular arguments supported by advanced and recognized economists that both support and debunk Roosevelts policies. This is not debateable, yet you'll try keep this circular argument going by utilizing classroom debate techniques in a pompous attempt to win a debate. Good luck!

Click to expand...

You haven't said anything here othere than "there are two sides." Well, so sh1t. Oh, and LOL @ "aw shucks, not all those fancy college learning and debate tricks", shuffle, shuffle.